So much for that

Well I'm turning off the WS. I turned it in and saw two batters. Snell walked a guy and gave up a two run homer.

That's it for me

I made a vague post about his no hitter in the world series thread right before the walk.

Snell is a twice through a lineup guy.

Choi!

Kelly getting his t*ts ripped off

Kelly throws it away and Muncy gets the error. Sure. Joe never takes the blame for anything.

Farmer1906 said:

---

Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

MaxPower said:

---

W said:

---

Brantley might accept the Q.O. ---- that's a 15% raise from his 2020 salary

---

He might but I think it's reasonably likely he is offered 2 years, $30 million. That's a lower average salary but at his age he has to take the multi year deal.

Regardless I agree $19 million isn't a bad deal for Brantley in isolation. I just fear Click's comments means they are going cheap this offseason.

---

In isolation I completely agree. The problem lies in that it would kill any hope of signing George...which in my opinion needs to be priority #1. Therefore it is considered a bad deal to me

---

I really canny see us resigning George because I think he's going to find a team willing to get him 5 year 125 M.

So Brantley can perform at at least 85% of what he has been the last 2 years then he is 100% worth 19 M for 1 year.

---

So we're pretending now that 25/year is a bad thing now? He is making 21 right now and we're dropping 13 million off from Reddick and 16 from Mike.

Don't think the 25 part is the issue. It's the 5.

This stadium is a joke. It's a launching pad. I know dodger stadium in the day was too but at least they could blame the heat. This is an indoor little league park. How did the Rangers not score a million runs?

Mathguy64 said:

---

This stadium is a joke. It's a launching pad. I know dodger stadium in the day was too but at least they could blame the heat. This is an indoor little league park. How did the Rangers not score a million runs?

---

Because little leaguers can still rarely hit homeruns in little league parks.

Mathguy64 said:

---

This stadium is a joke. It's a launching pad. I know dodger stadium in the day was too but at least they could blame the heat. This is an indoor little league park. How did the Rangers not score a million runs?

---

But it's not. Rangers hit more HRs on the road and their pitching gave up fewer HRs at home.

Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

MaxPower said:

---

W said:

---

Brantley might accept the Q.O. ---- that's a 15% raise from his 2020 salary

---

He might but I think it's reasonably likely he is offered 2 years, $30 million. That's a lower average salary but at his age he has to take the multi year deal.

Regardless I agree $19 million isn't a bad deal for Brantley in isolation. I just fear Click's comments means they are going cheap this offseason.

---

In isolation I completely agree. The problem lies in that it would kill any hope of signing George...which in my opinion needs to be priority #1. Therefore it is considered a bad deal to me

---

I really canny see us resigning George because I think he's going to find a team willing to get him 5 year 125 M.

So Brantley can perform at at least 85% of what he has been the last 2 years then he is 100% worth 19 M for 1 year.

---

So we're pretending now that 25/year is a bad thing now? He is making 21 right now and we're dropping 13 million off from Reddick and 16 from Mike.

---

How many 31 year olds sign long term dead making ~25 M? Pujols, Cano, Goldschmidt, Choo, & Cespedes would be the comps. He won't get 10 years like the first two and it's way too early to tell with Goldy. Choo & Cespedes ended up as bad deals along with Pujols & Cano.

25 M for 2-3 would be fine. 25 M per year for 5-6, not so much. We need to play players for what we get not what they've done in the past.

They played with the roof closed most of the season. When it's closed it's an extreme pitchers park. Open it's the opposite.

Farmer1906 said:

---

Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

MaxPower said:

---

W said:

---

Brantley might accept the Q.O. ---- that's a 15% raise from his 2020 salary

---

He might but I think it's reasonably likely he is offered 2 years, $30 million. That's a lower average salary but at his age he has to take the multi year deal.

Regardless I agree $19 million isn't a bad deal for Brantley in isolation. I just fear Click's comments means they are going cheap this offseason.

---

In isolation I completely agree. The problem lies in that it would kill any hope of signing George...which in my opinion needs to be priority #1. Therefore it is considered a bad deal to me

---

I really canny see us resigning George because I think he's going to find a team willing to get him 5 year 125 M.

So Brantley can perform at at least 85% of what he has been the last 2 years then he is 100% worth 19 M for 1 year.

---

So we're pretending now that 25/year is a bad thing now? He is making 21 right now and we're dropping 13 million off from Reddick and 16 from Mike.

---

How many 31 year olds sign long term dead making ~25 M? Pujols, Cano, Goldschmidt, Choo, & Cespedes would be the comps. He won't get 10 years like the first two and it's way too early to tell with Goldy. Choo & Cespedes ended up as bad deals along with Pujols & Cano.

25 M for 2-3 would be fine. 25 M per year for 5-6, not so much. We need to play players for what we get not what they've done in the past.

---

Could you now break down for me the impact that he can have on the rest of the team and how he might increase other guys play....because i believe that matters and being th leader and heart off a team matters

Farmer1906 said:

---

Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

MaxPower said:

---

W said:

---

Brantley might accept the Q.O. ---- that's a 15% raise from his 2020 salary

---

He might but I think it's reasonably likely he is offered 2 years, $30 million. That's a lower average salary but at his age he has to take the multi year deal.

Regardless I agree $19 million isn't a bad deal for Brantley in isolation. I just fear Click's comments means they are going cheap this offseason.

---

In isolation I completely agree. The problem lies in that it would kill any hope of signing George...which in my opinion needs to be priority #1. Therefore it is considered a bad deal to me

---

I really canny see us resigning George because I think he's going to find a team willing to get him 5 year 125 M.

So Brantley can perform at at least 85% of what he has been the last 2 years then he is 100% worth 19 M for 1 year.

---

So we're pretending now that 25/year is a bad thing now? He is making 21 right now and we're dropping 13 million off from Reddick and 16 from Mike.

---

How many 31 year olds sign long term dead making ~25 M? Pujols, Cano, Goldschmidt, Choo, & Cespedes would be the comps. He won't get 10 years like the first two and it's way too early to tell with Goldy. Choo & Cespedes ended up as bad deals along with Pujols & Cano.

25 M for 2-3 would be fine. 25 M per year for 5-6, not so much. We need to play players for what we get not what they've done in the past.

---

Which is why Houston should just give him 30M for the next 2 years and 20 or so in years 3/4.
#notmymoney

This isn't basketball. Baseball is the most individual team sport there is.

While this is true from a pure batter v pitcher perspective, there is an immeasurable psychological effect these guys have on each other. How often do we hear players say to media that George is the tone setter and all that?

Now, these guys are professionals and can deal with whatever happens to the roster, but it isn't negligible. Baseball is full of mental headcases at times.

Obviously, putting a monetary value on all that is pretty difficult

Springer is by far my favorite Astro... He seems to really enjoy playing the game and I agree with others he's the heart of the team.

I understand it's a business and all that, but I sure hope they find a way to sign him

The Springer decision seems like the first critical decision juncture for the franchise in terms of whether we're going to error on the side of long term sustainable success or keeping our "core 4" in tact no matter the cost and riding them until their window closes. Letting him walk is an indication of the former and resigning him is an indication of the latter.

Obviously those two objectives aren't totally mutually exclusive. Letting Springer walk doesn't mean we can't still make a championship run in the near future. Retaining him doesn't mean we can't achieve long term sustainable success. But it will sort of let us know which side we're going to error on.

We saw with the Tigers in the early 2010s and Red Sox more recently that paying big money to keep a nucleus in tact can lead to a multi-season rebuild. And in the case of the Red Sox, being forced to shave salary cost them one of the most generational talents in baseball (Betts). They won their ring so maybe it was all worth it, but times will be tough for them over the next couple years. The Tigers have been rebuilding for a while now.

The Cardinals have let various big time players walk over the years, but have generally found a way to stay relevant for 17 years and counting now. But it's also been a long time since we went into a season thinking "damn, the Cards look STACKED this year".

Like Farmer said, by just about any historical comp, locking Springer at 5/$125 would be a bad investment and we'd likely pay the price for it down the road when Yordan, Tucker, Framber, Urquidy, etc are due big raises. But at the same time, our "core 4" have very rare talent and playoff "it factor". Breaking them up prematurely wouldn't be quite on the same level as prematurely breaking up the 98 Bulls, but it would open the franchise up to alot of fan scrutiny and justifiable questions of "what if" for a long time.

I don't have a personal strong take either way, but I tend to think Crane/Click will be erroring on the side of long term sustainable success and letting Springer walk (unless we can keep him for cheaper than currently expected).

Side note that an underrated decision factor here IMO is whether or not the playoffs expand. If they expand to 8, having the best "super team" in any given year matters less because of the increased variability. We could probly make the field of 8 with or without Springer. If it stays as it was, we probably need Springer just to stay the mix.

Great post.

And to expand on the last paragraph. It will fundamentally change how the baseball season is handled. The 162 game season will seem so much less meaningful when you only need to win about half, maybe a few more. The trade deadline will take a huge hit with fewer sellers. Once the playoffs begin, anything can happen in a 3 game series. The super team will die. I really wonder what it will do to the market. More teams will be interested, but also fewer teams because if you're already pretty good, you won't want to spend. I really hope this decision is not taken lightly, but this is Manfred's league. Based on his history he'll greatly screw it up.

heavens11 said:

---

Springer is by far my favorite Astro... He seems to really enjoy playing the game and I agree with others he's the heart of the team.

I understand it's a business and all that, but I sure hope they find a way to sign him

---

Mine too.

Farmer1906 said:

---

Great post.

And to expand on the last paragraph. It will fundamentally change how the baseball season is handled. The 162 game season will seem so much less meaningful when you only need to win about half, maybe a few more. The trade deadline will take a huge hit with fewer sellers. Once the playoffs begin, anything can happen in a 3 game series. The super team will die. I really wonder what it will do to the market. More teams will be interested, but also fewer teams because if you're already pretty good, you won't want to spend. I really hope this decision is not taken lightly, but this is Manfred's league. Based on his history he'll greatly screw it up.

---

i know a team with a losing record almost made it to the world series, but, i think its interesting that despite all the predictions of chaos, anything can happen in a 16 team playoff, etc. the two teams in the world series are the two teams with the best record in their league, and the two best records overall

07ag said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

Great post.

And to expand on the last paragraph. It will fundamentally change how the baseball season is handled. The 162 game season will seem so much less meaningful when you only need to win about half, maybe a few more. The trade deadline will take a huge hit with fewer sellers. Once the playoffs begin, anything can happen in a 3 game series. The super team will die. I really wonder what it will do to the market. More teams will be interested, but also fewer teams because if you're already pretty good, you won't want to spend. I really hope this decision is not taken lightly, but this is Manfred's league. Based on his history he'll greatly screw it up.

---

i know a team with a losing record almost made it to the world series, but, i think its interesting that despite all the predictions of chaos, anything can happen in a 16 team playoff, etc. the two teams in the world series are the two teams with the best record in their league, and the two best records overall

---

But that happened in a 60 game season when people are just starting to get into the season. For all we know, we could have caught up to the A's and won the division in the regular season.

I don't think a team below .500 is going to make a serious run to the World Series unless they were an injury riddled team for most of the 162 games.

Farmer1906 said:

---

heavens11 said:

---

Springer is by far my favorite Astro... He seems to really enjoy playing the game and I agree with others he's the heart of the team.

I understand it's a business and all that, but I sure hope they find a way to sign him

---

Mine too.

---

Him and Correa have been mine since they both came up. I really hope we see both of them as Astros in the year 2022

regarding Springer...it really depends upon Crane.

looking at Spotrac...the Astros have between $150 MM and $160 MM already committed for the 2021 season.

so payroll is really tight for 2021. But relief comes the following season when 100% of JV and 67% of Greinke are off the books.

the Astros may have operated in the red this year...would Crane be willing to operate close to the red in 2021 as well?

Beat40 said:

---

07ag said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

Great post.

And to expand on the last paragraph. It will fundamentally change how the baseball season is handled. The 162 game season will seem so much less meaningful when you only need to win about half, maybe a few more. The trade deadline will take a huge hit with fewer sellers. Once the playoffs begin, anything can happen in a 3 game series. The super team will die. I really wonder what it will do to the market. More teams will be interested, but also fewer teams because if you're already pretty good, you won't want to spend. I really hope this decision is not taken lightly, but this is Manfred's league. Based on his history he'll greatly screw it up.

---

i know a team with a losing record almost made it to the world series, but, i think its interesting that despite all the predictions of chaos, anything can happen in a 16 team playoff, etc. the two teams in the world series are the two teams with the best record in their league, and the two best records overall

---

But that happened in a 60 game season when people are just starting to get into the season. For all we know, we could have caught up to the A's and won the division in the regular season.

I don't think a team below .500 is going to make a serious run to the World Series unless they were an injury riddled team for most of the 162 games.

---

I think we were in a position to play better because we were finally healthy, but also maybe not because we didn't need to. We really only needed to win 27 this year to get in. Why winning is always better than losing, there is no real incentive to win the division when the 2nd place spot gets you a 3 game series too.

Normally, a below .500 of near .500 team won't make a run. But before this expected expansion no .500 team could because they didn't make the postseason. We've seen teams get hot. The 2006 Cardinals finished the year 83-78 (51.2%) and went on to win it all. If you drop down to college ball - look how Coastal Carolina & Fresno State won it all even though they were outmanned.

another factor...

is it a given that every 2019 season ticket holder will be back as a 2021 season ticket holder?

after the COVID and economic challenges and so forth.

losing or retaining George might impact folks' decision

W said:

---

regarding Springer...it really depends upon Crane.

looking at Spotrac...the Astros have between $150 MM and $160 MM already committed for the 2021 season.

so payroll is really tight for 2021. But relief comes the following season when 100% of JV and 67% of Greinke are off the books.

the Astros may have operated in the red this year...would Crane be willing to operate close to the red in 2021 as well?

---

I agree. I wonder just how much money we've made in the last few years. Our TV isn't all that great and our payroll has been sky high. If that number is low and were in the red in 20 then I highly doubt we'd go back in the red for 21.

It's also going to come down to Correa as well. I know we get relief from JV and Greinke, but if we pay Springer and are already paying Altuve & Bregman, Can we afford to even make a competitive offer at Correa with ~75 M locked up in 3 position players? Correa is going to hit the market 4 years younger than Springer. If we define a player's prime as between the ages of 25 and 34, we can still get 8 years of Correa's prime vs 3 of George's. We already got the lion's share of Springer's prime.

Quote:

---

The Springer decision seems like the first critical decision juncture for the franchise in terms of whether we're going to error on the side of long term sustainable success or keeping our "core 4" in tact no matter the cost and riding them until their window closes. Letting him walk is an indication of the former and resigning him is an indication of the latter.

Obviously those two objectives aren't totally mutually exclusive. Letting Springer walk doesn't mean we can't still make a championship run in the near future. Retaining him doesn't mean we can't achieve long term sustainable success. But it will sort of let us know which side we're going to error on.

---

I generally agree with your description of the two strategies.

But you have to consider where we are currently.

We have NOBODY that can step in and generate anything close to Springer's production. We have nothing in the farm, and the free agent market for outfielders sucks.

To me, if we were to let him walk because its the best formula for guaranteeing long term success, we are leaving ourselves with huge unknown in our outfield.. with the only solutions in the near term and mid term being..

1. Get lucky - either with a low to mid level free agent or hopes that someone in the system approaches his level of production within the next 3 years.

2. Pay heavily, either through free agency in the coming years or trades, for someone who has a high % chance of replacing his production.

3. Hope Tucker turns into Springer, and aim to replace Tucker's mid level production.

In my opinion, we have proven we can develop arms at a high rate. Our infield is mostly locked up. The only issue with paying Springer is having the money to pay Correa. But I think we can move enough pieces around the find the money for both as long as we are willing to commit to cheaper arms and moving some of those pieces when the time is right. We're going to have to pay someone to play outfield anywhere near Springer's level. I'd rather pay one of our existing team leaders than shake up the clubhouse and have to pay anyway.

Farmer1906 said:

---

Beat40 said:

---

07ag said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

Great post.

And to expand on the last paragraph. It will fundamentally change how the baseball season is handled. The 162 game season will seem so much less meaningful when you only need to win about half, maybe a few more. The trade deadline will take a huge hit with fewer sellers. Once the playoffs begin, anything can happen in a 3 game series. The super team will die. I really wonder what it will do to the market. More teams will be interested, but also fewer teams because if you're already pretty good, you won't want to spend. I really hope this decision is not taken lightly, but this is Manfred's league. Based on his history he'll greatly screw it up.

---

i know a team with a losing record almost made it to the world series, but, i think its interesting that despite all the predictions of chaos, anything can happen in a 16 team playoff, etc. the two teams in the world series are the two teams with the best record in their league, and the two best records overall

---

But that happened in a 60 game season when people are just starting to get into the season. For all we know, we could have caught up to the A's and won the division in the regular season.

I don't think a team below .500 is going to make a serious run to the World Series unless they were an injury riddled team for most of the 162 games.

---

I think we were in a position to play better because we were finally healthy, but also maybe not because we didn't need to. We really only needed to win 27 this year to get in. Why winning is always better than losing, there is no real incentive to win the division when the 2nd place spot gets you a 3 game series too.

Normally, a below .500 of near .500 team won't make a run. But before this expected expansion no .500 team could because they didn't make the postseason. We've seen teams get hot. The 2006 Cardinals finished the year 83-78 (51.2%) and went on to win it all. If you drop down to college ball - look how Coastal Carolina & Fresno State won it all even though they were outmanned.

---

Don't disagree, just think it will not be as common as what almost happened us.

I also think if they keep this no off days for the wild card series, LDS, or LCS, those .500 teams have even less of a chance to make a deep run in a full season.

Again, just get to the post season and anything can happen, but I just think sub .500 teams constantly making deep runs in the post season isn't going to happen much. My qualification for deep run is a LCS.

Did y'all know Raley has a $2M option for 2021?

Quote:

---

Raley, 32, is under team control for next season, too. As part of the deal he signed with the Reds to come back from Korea, his contract features a $2-million club option for 2021. The Astros must notify him whether they will exercise it or decline it within five days of the end of the World Series. The decision seems obvious, especially given that the bullpen is a weakness of their roster and injured closer Roberto Osuna is a non-tender candidate. Bringing back Raley would make for one fewer reliever they have to acquire this offseason.

---

https://theathletic.com/2093829/2020/10/22/brooks-raley-was-a-shrewd-add-for-the-astros-and-they-can-retain-him-for-2021/